Welcome to the best KC Chiefs site on the internet. You can view any post as a visitor, but you are required to register before you can post. Click the register link above, it only takes 30 seconds to start chatting with Chiefs fans from all over the world! Enjoy your stay!

The ONLY political and religious thread allowed on Chiefscrowd

0

Clinton, McCain emerge as comeback winners in New Hampshire primary

WASHINGTON - Democrat Hillary Clinton pulled off an unexpected narrow victory in New Hampshire on Tuesday, dramatically rescuing her bid for the White House in a tense battle with Barack Obama.
Clinton, who's fighting to become the first woman in the Oval Office, mounted a surprisingly strong showing after bracing for a second defeat following her devastating third-place showing in Iowa.

Republican John McCain also nabbed a major comeback victory, putting him solidly back in his party's nomination race.
While Obama, vying to make history as the first black U.S. president, scored big among independents and voters between 18 and 24, Clinton attracted lower-income voters and seniors and did best among voters citing the economy as their top concern.
But a big factor for Clinton was women voters, who had gone over to Obama in large numbers in Iowa. Nearly half in New Hampshire were once again supporting her, while Obama got only a third.

No, they voted yes for the bill and for the budget... who didn't vote yes?

You've lost me here bud, but I'll try to respond. I'm not sure my response is appropriate to your reply.

When you say "they" do you mean the Democrats? If so Obama himself said he would not negotiate any part of Obamacare thus taking the country into the shutdown. It was the Democrats that crammed the ACA through congress without even reading it, ignoring any objections or input from concerned Republicans. I don't know of any Republicans, although there may have been, that voted for the ACA.

I see that the representative in Kansas voted no. Kansas though has been a pretty red state. Oh well, guess we will see what happens in Jan. 2014. It would be interesting if the union should split. Let the blue have their states and the red theirs, be interesting what would happen then.

You've lost me here bud, but I'll try to respond. I'm not sure my response is appropriate to your reply.

When you say "they" do you mean the Democrats? If so Obama himself said he would not negotiate any part of Obamacare thus taking the country into the shutdown. It was the Democrats that crammed the ACA through congress without even reading it, ignoring any objections or input from concerned Republicans. I don't know of any Republicans, although there may have been, that voted for the ACA.

My point though President Obama doesn't have to negotiate nor does the Dems in Congress since Congress already tried to repeal the ACA... how many times now... 44 or so? The votes were always to keep the ACA as it is and as a law. Replace them Dems that did vote yes with GOP that will vote no, then this will be a different story. This is how our Founding Fathers saw it.

Now if the compromises fail the vote, then the Founding Fathers expected the others to respect the Union as a whole. The ACA made it through and the repeals didn't.

Originally Posted by mejohnm

My point though President Obama doesn't have to negotiate nor does the Dems in Congress since Congress already tried to repeal the ACA... how many times now... 44 or so? The votes were always to keep the ACA as it is and as a law. Replace them Dems that did vote yes with GOP that will vote no, then this will be a different story. This is how our Founding Fathers saw it.

That's all well and good, except absent from your argument is the fact that House Republicans sent bill after bill to the Senate in order to reopen the Government item by item, the way the Founding Fathers meant it to be, and the Senate Democrats rejected each and every one of them because they wanted it all in one big omnibus in order to control the shutdown to inflict maximum pain and damage while blaming House Conservatives for the shutdown. We can do this all day, the fact of the matter is that voiding the President and the Democrats of any culpability in this matter is a flawed argument. Also missing in the argument is the fact that the President has not lead or engaged himself at all in this process, he continues his stance of leading from behind.

My point though President Obama doesn't have to negotiate nor does the Dems in Congress since Congress already tried to repeal the ACA... how many times now... 44 or so? The votes were always to keep the ACA as it is and as a law. Replace them Dems that did vote yes with GOP that will vote no, then this will be a different story. This is how our Founding Fathers saw it.

Again, the Founding Fathers also put the House of Representatives in control of the purse strings in order to rein in the Executive branch from overreaching it's Constitutional authority which Obama has done when he unilaterally changed the ACA in it's implementation as it was written, voted on and signed by him.

Yea, that they did. For one, I cannot find anywhere in the Constitution where it says how that is suppose to go. Do you have a supporting link? I tried to find one but had no luck.

Also, if they do want to do that in that way, then they should make sure they send a bill for the spending for every item. Now we know the GOP was not gonna send an item for the ACA, hence the reason why this all happened. I understand the all in one though, it is to prevent these type of games. Or if they want item by item, then they need to send all items at the same time but might as well go with the all in one.

Yea, that they did. For one, I cannot find anywhere in the Constitution where it says how that is suppose to go. Do you have a supporting link? I tried to find one but had no luck.

Also, if they do want to do that in that way, then they should make sure they send a bill for the spending for every item. Now we know the GOP was not gonna send an item for the ACA, hence the reason why this all happened. I understand the all in one though, it is to prevent these type of games. Or if they want item by item, then they need to send all items at the same time but might as well go with the all in one.

Absolutely correct for reasons we've already discussed.

As for the rest here, I have read through the Constitution and Amendments a couple of times and I don't remember any mention of specific rules regarding how appropriations are to be approved and allocated by Congress except that they start in the House and is approved by the Senate. It is widely accepted that appropriations was originally set up on an item by item basis to avert any one branch of Government from having too much control over the legislative process. I'll do more research though.